Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 479-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 33813
`Case 1:18-cv-00924—CFC-SRF Document 479-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 33813
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 479-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 33814
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`- - -
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`NO. 17-1407 (CFC)
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`NO. 18-924 (CFC)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`::::::::::::::::::::
`
`GENENTECH, INC. and CITY OF
`HOPE,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
` vs.
`AMGEN INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`---------------------------
`GENENTECH, INC.,
` Plaintiff,
` vs.
`AMGEN, INC.,
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
` - - -
` Wilmington, Delaware
` Wednesday, October 16, 2019
` 9:00 o'clock, a.m.
` - - -
`BEFORE: HONORABLE COLM F. CONNOLLY, U.S.D.C.J.
` - - -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Valerie J. Gunning
` Official Court Reporter
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 of 122 sheets
`
`Page 1 to 1 of 309
`
`10/22/2019 11:55:11 AM
`
`

`

`(cid:21)
`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 479-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 33815
`(cid:23)
`APPEARANCES:
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(Proceedings commenced in the courtroom,
`beginning at 9:00 a.m.)
`
`THE COURT: Good morning. Please be seated.
`(Counsel respond, "Good morning, Your Honor.")
`THE COURT: Mr. Silver?
`MR. SILVER: Good morning, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: How are you?
`MR. SILVER: I'm good. Thanks. How are you?
`THE COURT: Good.
`MR. SILVER: Your Honor, with me on behalf of
`Genentech today are Thomas Fletcher from Williams &
`Connolly, Paul Gaffney from Williams & Connolly, David Berl
`from Williams & Connolly, Luke McCloud from Williams &
`Connolly, Andrew Danford from Wilmer Hale, Daralyn Durie
`from Durie Tangri, and we've got Rebecca Grant from
`Genentech.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much.
`Ms. Ormerod, how are you?
`MS. ORMEROD: Eve Ormerod on behalf of Amgen in
`the 18-924 case.
`With me today from Cooley are Michele Rhyu,
`Eamonn Gardner and Phillip Mao, and from Amgen we Lois
`
`(cid:20)
`
`(cid:21)
`(cid:22)
`
`(cid:23) (cid:24)
`
`(cid:25)
`(cid:26)
`(cid:27)
`(cid:28)
`(cid:20)(cid:19)
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
`(cid:20)(cid:21)
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`(cid:20)(cid:27)
`(cid:20)(cid:28)
`(cid:21)(cid:19)
`(cid:21)(cid:20)
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`(cid:21)(cid:22)
`(cid:21)(cid:23)
`(cid:21)(cid:24)
`
` McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
` BY: DANIEL M. SILVER, ESQ.
`
` -and-
`
` WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`BY: PAUL B. GAFFNEY, ESQ.,
` DAVID J. BERL, ESQ.,
` THOMAS S. FLTECHER, ESQ.,
` TEAGAN J. GREGORY, ESQ.
` CHARLES McCLOUD, ESQ.
` ANDREW DANFORD, ESQ.
` (Washington, D.C.)
`
` -and-
`
`DURIE TANGRI
`BY: DARALYN DURIE, ESQ.
`
` Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
` YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
` BY: MELANIE K. SHARP, ESQ. and
` JAMES L. HIGGINS, ESQ.
`
` -and-
`
`PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
`BY: SIEGMUND Y. GUTMAN, ESQ.,
` AMIR NAINI, ESQ. and
` DAVID HANNAH, ESQ.
` (Los Angeles, California)
`
` -and-
`
`(cid:22)
`
`(cid:24)
`
`(cid:20) (cid:21)
`
`(cid:22) (cid:23)
`
`(cid:24) (cid:25)
`
`(cid:26)
`
`(cid:27)
`
`(cid:28)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:19)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:21)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:19)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:20)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:22)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:23)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:24)
`
`(cid:20) (cid:21)
`
`(cid:22) (cid:23)
`
`(cid:24)
`
`(cid:25) (cid:26)
`
`(cid:27)
`
`(cid:28)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:19)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:21)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:19)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:20)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:22)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:23)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:24)
`
`APPEARANCES (Continued):
`
` AMGEN INC.
` BY: DREW DIAMOND, ESQ.
`
` Counsel for Defendant
` Amgen Inc.
` (CA No. 17-1407-CFC)
`
` SMITH KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
` BY: NEAL C. BELGAM, ESQ. and
` EVE H. ORMEROD, ESQ.
`
` -and-
`
` COOLEY LLP.
` BY: MICHELLE RHYU, ESQ.,
` PHILIP S. MAO, ESQ. and
` DANIEL KNAUSS, ESQ.
`
` Counsel for Defendant Amgen
` (CA 18-924-CFC)
`
` - - -
`
`(cid:20)
`(cid:21)
`(cid:22)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:24)
`(cid:25)
`(cid:26)
`(cid:27)
`(cid:28)
`(cid:20)(cid:19)
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
`(cid:20)(cid:21)
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`(cid:20)(cid:27)
`(cid:20)(cid:28)
`(cid:21)(cid:19)
`(cid:21)(cid:20)
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`(cid:21)(cid:22)
`(cid:21)(cid:23)
`(cid:21)(cid:24)
`Page 2 to 5 of 309
`
`Cosigrove and Nancy Goettel. We also have Neal Belgam from
`my office.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
`Ms. Sharp?
`MS. SHARP: Good morning, Your Honor. Melanie
`Sharp from Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor for Amgen in the
`17-14-07-case. Also Jim Higgins from Young Conaway. With
`me are my colleagues Your Honor has met, Siegmund Gutman,
`Amir Naini, David Hanna, and Drew Diamond from Amgen.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
`All right. I guess let's begin. You know, the
`declarations were largely about the intrinsic evidence and
`the briefing. As far as I'm concerned, that is already
`dealt with. You can address it real quickly if you want,
`but I thought the purpose of this hearing was to adduce
`extrinsic evidence so I can make a decision. I think I've
`already ruled that I'm unable based on the intrinsic
`evidence to construe the terms.
`MR. FLETCHER: Yes, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: All right.
`MR. FLETCHER: And I think we will go through
`the extrinsic evidence today.
`THE COURT: I mean, did you have a different
`understanding, because I mean the declaration basically just
`went through the Kao patent. I thought that we did that.
`
`10/22/2019 11:55:11 AM
`
`2 of 122 sheets
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 479-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 33816
`(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:27)
`(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:25)
`(cid:20)
`(cid:20)
`case, while they're not revealing their launch dates, these
`and after that hearing, Your Honor ordered that the
`(cid:21)
`(cid:21)
`have timing provisions that my understanding is, I confess
`agreements had to be produced and the only thing that could
`(cid:22)
`(cid:22)
`I've not seen this document or program or spreadsheet that
`be redacted were launch dates and irrelevant information
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`was produced in the litigation, but Genentech has an
`dates, but nothing that had to do with consideration.
`(cid:24)
`(cid:24)
`internal way of plugging in periods of time in the future
`They produced the documents, very heavily
`(cid:25)
`(cid:25)
`that can sort of anticipate the impact of biosimilar
`redacted, including provisions in the settlement agreement
`(cid:26)
`(cid:26)
`competition. So the idea here is that our damages expert is
`and licenses that we do believe weigh heavily on
`(cid:27)
`(cid:27)
`going to need to know this sort of information so that we're
`consideration, including acceleration clauses and provisions
`(cid:28)
`(cid:28)
`able to put together, you know, a theory, a defensive theory
`dealing with pre-market activities that are permitted under
`(cid:20)(cid:19)
`(cid:20)(cid:19)
`on reasonable royalty or whatever other damages theory they
`the agreements.
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
`bring out.
`Maybe the easiest way to visualize this is if
`(cid:20)(cid:21)
`(cid:20)(cid:21)
`you look at Exhibit 4 to our letter at page 4-68 --
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`THE COURT: Four-dash what?
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`MR. HIGGINS: 4-68 and subsequent pages.
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`THE COURT: Yes.
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`MR. HIGGINS: If you compare that to Exhibit 7,
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`which is a more recently produced settlement agreement
`(cid:20)(cid:27)
`(cid:20)(cid:27)
`that is much more appropriately redacted, and if you look
`(cid:20)(cid:28)
`(cid:20)(cid:28)
`at page 7-60 and subsequent pages, both of these -- are you
`(cid:21)(cid:19)
`(cid:21)(cid:19)
`there?
`(cid:21)(cid:20)
`(cid:21)(cid:20)
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`(cid:21)(cid:22)
`(cid:21)(cid:22)
`(cid:21)(cid:23)
`(cid:21)(cid:23)
`(cid:21)(cid:24)
`(cid:21)(cid:24)
`
`MR. HIGGINS: Okay. So the third parties were
`heard fully on this back in May, and as a result of that,
`Genentech implemented redactions -- well, purportedly
`pursuant to Your Honor's order, produced the licenses. We
`complained about them a month-and-a-half ago, that they were
`severely over-redacted.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. So there are two things.
`There were multiple references to third-party licenses.
`So is this the one where folks wrote letters, third parties?
`MR. HIGGINS: Yes. If I can address that very
`
`briefly.
`
`THE COURT: Yes. You need to address it. And
`then you last night said, well, guess what? We'd like to
`table this.
`
`THE COURT: Yes. I have not done the
`comparison, so hold on. Do you want me to compare them?
`MR. HIGGINS: I will talk about it, but you can
`visualize the extent of their redactions.
`These are basic --
`
`(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:26)
`THE COURT: You mean these redactions?
`MR. HIGGINS: No. Actually maybe you're on the
`wrong page. Which exhibit are you on?
`THE COURT: You tell me.
`MR. HIGGINS: Okay. Well, I'm on Exhibit 4 at
`
`THE COURT: All right. I'm there.
`MR. HIGGINS: And then compare that to Exhibit 7
`
`page 4-68.
`
`at 7-68.
`
`(cid:20)
`(cid:21)
`(cid:22)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:24)
`(cid:25)
`(cid:26)
`(cid:27)
`(cid:28)
`(cid:20)(cid:19)
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
`(cid:20)(cid:21)
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`(cid:20)(cid:27)
`(cid:20)(cid:28)
`(cid:21)(cid:19)
`(cid:21)(cid:20)
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`(cid:21)(cid:22)
`(cid:21)(cid:23)
`(cid:21)(cid:24)
`73 of 122 sheets
`
`THE COURT: All right. Hold up. All right.
`MR. HIGGINS: And what you will see is that --
`THE COURT: Wait. This is supposed to be the
`same license?
`MR. HIGGINS: No, it's not the same license.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. HIGGINS: But they're very similar. All of
`these licenses are very similar.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. HIGGINS: What you will see is that Section
`2.2, for instance, in Exhibit 7 and 2.3 in Exhibit 7 appear
`to be redacted in Exhibit 4, and these are acceleration
`provisions. And as I said earlier, a provision dealing with
`permissible pre-market activities. And these would be
`things that would be heavily negotiated by the parties. And
`the reason they're relevant here is because in the damages
`
`(cid:20)
`(cid:21)
`(cid:22)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:24)
`(cid:25)
`(cid:26)
`(cid:27)
`(cid:28)
`(cid:20)(cid:19)
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
`(cid:20)(cid:21)
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`(cid:20)(cid:27)
`(cid:20)(cid:28)
`(cid:21)(cid:19)
`(cid:21)(cid:20)
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`(cid:21)(cid:22)
`(cid:21)(cid:23)
`(cid:21)(cid:24)
`Page 286 to 289 of 309
`
`(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:28)
`We met and conferred with Genentech. They
`refused to reduce the redactions, so at that point, we were
`at an impasse with Genentech on their implementation of Your
`Honor's order, basically.
`During that meet and confer, at no point did
`Genentech suggest that we should be looping in these third
`parties. We didn't feel it necessary because this was no
`longer an issue with the third parties. They've been heard
`in May and Your Honor had ruled.
`In light of the fact that there were two
`letters submitted by I believe it was Mylan on Friday and
`Celltrion/Teva on Monday, and in light of, candidly, the
`amount of things that were on the calendar for today, I made
`a judgment, and if it was wrong, I apologize.
`THE COURT: Don't apologize.
`MR. HIGGINS: That Your Honor would be more
`bothered by a dispute about a meet and confer than about
`pushing it off for a few days or what have you, but I
`understand that's not an option, so here we are.
`THE COURT: It's not a question of bothering me.
`It's a question of, we have to address these things, and I
`don't have enough time.
`MR. HIGGINS: Right.
`THE COURT: So we've got to address this today.
`Why don't we just have these produced to outside
`
`10/22/2019 11:55:11 AM
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 479-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 33817
`(cid:21)(cid:28)(cid:21)
`(cid:21)(cid:28)(cid:19)
`(cid:20)
`(cid:20)
`And then to the extent Amgen wants to offer some
`counsel and experts only, and then if you need further
`(cid:21)
`(cid:21)
`sort of compromise proposal, Mylan just wants time to
`production, then an application can be made at that point.
`(cid:22)
`(cid:22)
`consider that. So really, we're just asking for an
`MR. HIGGINS: I think that would be okay.
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`opportunity to meet and confer with Amgen on this.
`THE COURT: So let me hear then from the other
`(cid:24)
`(cid:24)
`THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you.
`side and see if that is okay with them.
`(cid:25)
`(cid:25)
`MR. JOHNSON: Very briefly, Your Honor. Michael
`MR. HIGGINS: I do want to confirm that.
`(cid:26)
`(cid:26)
`Johnson from Willkie Farr & Gallagher on behalf of
`MS. DURIE: And, Your Honor, Daralyn Durie for
`(cid:27)
`(cid:27)
`third-party Pfizer. We submitted a letter on Friday.
`Genentech. I am be addressing this issue in the Avastin
`(cid:28)
`(cid:28)
`THE COURT: Yes.
`case.
`(cid:20)(cid:19)
`(cid:20)(cid:19)
`MR. JOHNSON: We had a little bit more of a meet
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
`and confer with them.
`(cid:20)(cid:21)
`(cid:20)(cid:21)
`THE COURT: Right.
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`MR. JOHNSON: The concern here is simply nothing
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`has changed since the May hearing. It's ironic to us that
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`Amgen in the trastuzumab case is not seeking further
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`disclosure of the agreement, but rather only seeking it in
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`the Avastin case where there's very little overlap and
`(cid:20)(cid:27)
`(cid:20)(cid:27)
`therefore very little relevance. In fact, I think the
`(cid:20)(cid:28)
`(cid:20)(cid:28)
`primary patent that overlaps it is the one that you spent
`(cid:21)(cid:19)
`(cid:21)(cid:19)
`today hearing about whether or not it's indefinite.
`(cid:21)(cid:20)
`(cid:21)(cid:20)
`We don't think there's any relevance to these,
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`the trastuzumab agreement and bevacizumab. We don't think
`(cid:21)(cid:22)
`(cid:21)(cid:22)
`any other redactions -- un-redactions are necessary. We
`(cid:21)(cid:23)
`(cid:21)(cid:23)
`would be willing I think to consent to a disclosure on an
`(cid:21)(cid:24)
`(cid:21)(cid:24)
`outside counsel basis provided that for the agreement to
`
`From our perspective, this really is a
`third-party confidentiality issue. We were even deferring
`to implement what we understood the redaction guidance to be
`in view of the third-party confidentiality concerns. We
`think we got it right.
`To the extent that Amgen thinks we got it wrong,
`we just want to make sure the third parties have an
`opportunity to be heard, because it's fundamentally their
`issue. We have a contractual obligation to raise the
`issue, but the substantive is concern is the third-party
`issue.
`
`THE COURT: Right. We don't have time.
`MS. DURIE: Completely understood.
`THE COURT: Wait. Hold on. This is Avastin.
`MS. DURIE: I'm counsel in Avastin as well. I'm
`actually counsel in both cases, so I'm appearing on the
`
`(cid:21)(cid:28)(cid:20)
`
`Avastin issue.
`THE COURT: All right. Got it. So is the third
`party here?
`MR. LENNON: Your Honor, Jim Lennon on behalf of
`
`Mylan.
`
`(cid:20)
`(cid:21)
`(cid:22)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:24)
`(cid:25)
`(cid:26)
`(cid:27)
`(cid:28)
`(cid:20)(cid:19)
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
`(cid:20)(cid:21)
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`(cid:20)(cid:27)
`(cid:20)(cid:28)
`(cid:21)(cid:19)
`(cid:21)(cid:20)
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`(cid:21)(cid:22)
`(cid:21)(cid:23)
`(cid:21)(cid:24)
`10/22/2019 11:55:11 AM
`
`THE COURT: Mylan. Okay.
`MR. LENNON: So Mylan hasn't really had an
`opportunity to really consider what Mr. Higgins just raised,
`the exhibits, the examples of redactions. We have not seen
`those. We weren't invited to participate in the meet and
`confer. We weren't aware of this issue.
`As soon as we became aware of this issue, we
`asked the Court if we could be heard on it, but we still
`have not had a substantive opportunity to meet and confer.
`I think Mr. Higgins acknowledges that a meet and confer
`would be appropriate at this time.
`So I guess all I can raise at this point is that
`we don't understand anything to have changed substantively
`since the May hearing, that the redacted copies were already
`produced. You know, we understood those to be worked out
`with Genentech to be sufficient.
`Mylan's agreement is with respect to matuzumab,
`not bevacizumab. Pardon me for butchering these. I'm not
`involved in the case, so it's not directly relevant to this
`case.
`
`(cid:20)
`(cid:21)
`(cid:22)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:24)
`(cid:25)
`(cid:26)
`(cid:27)
`
`(cid:28)(cid:28)
`
`So here's what I'm going to do. With Pfizer,So here's what I'm going to do. With Pfizer,
`
`(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:19) Genentech must produce to outside counsel unredacted
`Genentech must produce to outside counsel unredacted
`
`(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:20)
`
`versions, okay, of the agreement. And then if counsel wantsversions, okay, of the agreement. And then if counsel wants
`
`(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:21)
`
`to make an application that there's a need to furtherto make an application that there's a need to further
`
`(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:22)
`
`disseminate it, we can deal with it at that point.disseminate it, we can deal with it at that point.
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`MR. JOHNSON: I guess, Your Honor, I just would
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`like to be heard then on why there's any relevance to the
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`foreign documents.
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`THE COURT: I read your letter. I mean, you
`(cid:20)(cid:27)
`know, there is -- we've already in this case addressed
`(cid:20)(cid:28)
`the issue of foreign sales being relevant, and Mr. Gaffney
`(cid:21)(cid:19)
`was heard and persuaded me that that information was
`(cid:21)(cid:20)
`relevant. So I don't want to revisit that issue. I decided
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`it. I think it is relevant and it's going to outside
`(cid:21)(cid:22)
`counsel only.
`(cid:21)(cid:23)
`I think the issue is it should go to experts.
`(cid:21)(cid:24)
`That's an issue I don't want to hear argument about.
`Page 290 to 293 of 309
`
`(cid:21)(cid:28)(cid:22)
`have both U.S. and foreign stuff, is that the foreign dates
`and the settlement of foreign litigation can still be
`removed.
`
`THE COURT: I'm not going to do that. So with
`Pfizer I can rule because you're here, and I mean, I guess
`maybe you could -- is there some technical issue you could
`raise? No, because Genentech has it. You've got it.
`Right.
`
`74 of 122 sheets
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 479-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 33818
`(cid:21)(cid:28)(cid:25)
`(cid:21)(cid:28)(cid:23)
`(cid:20)
`(cid:20)
`MR. BELGAM: Before we get to that, on the last
`MR. JOHNSON: All right. Thank you, Your Honor.
`(cid:21)
`(cid:21)
`motion, I didn't want to interrupt anybody, but in the
`MR. HIGGINS: So, Your Honor, I confirmed that
`(cid:22)
`(cid:22)
`Herceptin case, the licenses were provided as outside
`that would be fine to receive those on outside counsel.
`
`(cid:23)(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`counsel only and we don't have a provision to that effect in
`
`THE COURT: Let's just do it first with outsideTHE COURT: Let's just do it first with outside
`
`(cid:24)(cid:24)
`(cid:24)
`our protective order. That is an active dispute.
`
`(cid:25)(cid:25)
`(cid:25)
`I was meeting and conferring with the third
`
`(cid:26)(cid:26)
`(cid:26)
`parties and with opposing counsel and that, and I made the
`
`(cid:27)(cid:27)
`(cid:27)
`decision that Your Honor had too much on the plate for
`
`(cid:28)(cid:28)
`(cid:28)
`today, so we purposely did not present that issue to the
`
`(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:19)
`(cid:20)(cid:19)
`Court.
`
`(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:20)
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:21)
`(cid:20)(cid:21)
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:20)(cid:25)
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:26)
`(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:20)(cid:27)
`(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`THE COURT: The answer is no. I'm only rulingTHE COURT: The answer is no. I'm only ruling
`(cid:21)(cid:19)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:19) with regard to outside counsel. I'm basically granting
`with regard to outside counsel. I'm basically granting
`(cid:21)(cid:20)
`(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:20) Amgen's application in part and I'm saying that the Pfizer
`
`Amgen's application in part and I'm saying that the Pfizer
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:21)
`
`agreement will be shared with outside counsel. That doesagreement will be shared with outside counsel. That does
`(cid:21)(cid:22)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:21)(cid:22)
`
`not include in-house counsel and that does not includenot include in-house counsel and that does not include
`(cid:21)(cid:23)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:23)
`
`somebody who is in-house and yet files an appearance andsomebody who is in-house and yet files an appearance and
`(cid:21)(cid:24)
`(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:21)(cid:24) wants to be considered outside counsel. That's not outside
`
`wants to be considered outside counsel. That's not outside
`
`
`
`counsel.counsel.
`
`
`MR. HIGGINS: Right.MR. HIGGINS: Right.
`
`THE COURT: And then you can make an applicationTHE COURT: And then you can make an application
`
`if you need to have further distribution to an expert orif you need to have further distribution to an expert or
`
`else otherwise.else otherwise.
`
`I'm going to be referring all discovery disputesI'm going to be referring all discovery disputes
`
`going forward to Magistrate Judge Fallon, so she'll be thegoing forward to Magistrate Judge Fallon, so she'll be the
`
`one you'll have to make such an application to.one you'll have to make such an application to.
`MS. DURIE: One brief issue, Your Honor. There
`was also an issue teed up with respect to Mr. Diamond,
`in-house counsel for Amgen, and his ability to have
`access to the Pfizer bevacizumab agreement. We do object to
`that.
`
`THE COURT: I just said only outside counsel --
`oh, they call him outside counsel?
`MS. DURIE: You just ruled with respect to the
`trastuzumab, the Herceptin agreement.
`THE COURT: Actually, I didn't. I ruled only
`with respect to Pfizer, because Pfizer was heard.
`MS. DURIE: Correct.
`THE COURT: And Mylan wants more time.
`
`THE COURT: What issue? Sorry?
`MR. BELGAM: The question of whether --
`THE COURT: The question of whether somebody can
`designate somebody as inside counsel to serve as outside
`counsel?
`
`
`MR. BELGAM: No. The question of whetherMR. BELGAM: No. The question of whether
`
`in-house litigation counsel with have access to thein-house litigation counsel with have access to the
`
`licenses.licenses.
`
`(cid:21)(cid:28)(cid:24)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:28)(cid:26)
`
`(cid:20)
`MS. DURIE: Correct. Right.
`
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`
`THE COURT: But Mylan should get an idea whereTHE COURT: But Mylan should get an idea where
`
`(cid:22)(cid:22)
`
`I'm coming from and, you know, I'm going to get thatI'm coming from and, you know, I'm going to get that
`
`(cid:23)(cid:23) Magistrate Judge Fallon, at least at the outset, is going to
`Magistrate Judge Fallon, at least at the outset, is going to
`
`(cid:24)(cid:24)
`
`rule the way that I've indicated is appropriate.rule the way that I've indicated is appropriate.
`
`(cid:25)(cid:25)
`
`So you can work it out and maybe there areSo you can work it out and maybe there are
`
`(cid:26)(cid:26)
`
`special circumstances that you can justify in a way thatspecial circumstances that you can justify in a way that
`(cid:27)(cid:27) wasn't in Pfizer, and that Pfizer should understand, given
`
`wasn't in Pfizer, and that Pfizer should understand, given
`
`(cid:28)(cid:28)
`
`the very limited disclosure of material, again, I've readthe very limited disclosure of material, again, I've read
`
`(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:19)
`
`your letter and that's why I'm ruling the way I am. Allyour letter and that's why I'm ruling the way I am. All
`
`(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:20)
`
`right? You'll have an opportunity to be heard about furtherright? You'll have an opportunity to be heard about further
`
`(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:21)
`
`dissemination of the information.dissemination of the information.
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`MS. DURIE: That's the Pfizer Herceptin
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`agreement. We've already produced the Pfizer Avastin
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`agreement.
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`(cid:20)(cid:27)
`(cid:20)(cid:28)
`(cid:21)(cid:19)
`(cid:21)(cid:20)
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`(cid:21)(cid:22)
`(cid:21)(cid:23)
`(cid:21)(cid:24)
`75 of 122 sheets
`
`me?
`
`MS. DURIE: Yes.
`MR. HIGGINS: This is our motion. That's a
`little bit inaccurate.
`
`
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`
`MR. BELGAM: I'm sorry. I was attempting toMR. BELGAM: I'm sorry. I was attempting to
`
`(cid:22)(cid:22)
`
`tell the Court that we were not presenting that issue to thetell the Court that we were not presenting that issue to the
`
`(cid:23)(cid:23)
`
`Court and that I wanted to preserve my rights on it so ICourt and that I wanted to preserve my rights on it so I
`
`(cid:24)(cid:24)
`
`could ultimately have presented it to the Court. The Courtcould ultimately have presented it to the Court. The Court
`
`(cid:25)(cid:25) may have given its opinion on that.
`may have given its opinion on that.
`
`(cid:26)(cid:26)
`
`THE COURT: What's going to happen is if furtherTHE COURT: What's going to happen is if further
`
`(cid:27)(cid:27)
`
`dissemination is sought, I just said you can make andissemination is sought, I just said you can make an
`
`(cid:28)(cid:28)
`
`application. You may say we would like to share it withapplication. You may say we would like to share it with
`
`(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:19)
`
`some in-house counsel. We would like to share it with ansome in-house counsel. We would like to share it with an
`
`(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:20)
`
`expert. We would like to share it with Oprah Winfrey. Youexpert. We would like to share it with Oprah Winfrey. You
`
`(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:21)
`
`can go wherever you want and Magistrate Fallon willcan go wherever you want and Magistrate Fallon will
`
`(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:22)
`
`entertain that. I'm not entertaining any more discoveryentertain that. I'm not entertaining any more discovery
`
`(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:23)
`
`disputes.disputes.
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`(cid:20)(cid:27)
`(cid:20)(cid:28)
`(cid:21)(cid:19)
`(cid:21)(cid:20)
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`(cid:21)(cid:22)
`(cid:21)(cid:23)
`(cid:21)(cid:24)
`Page 294 to 297 of 309
`
`counsel.
`counsel.
`
`MR. BELGAM: Thank you. I just wanted to
`preserve my ability to do that.
`THE COURT: Yes.
`MR. BELGAM: Thank you.
`THE COURT: Yes.
`MR. HIGGINS: Back to number one in the letter,
`just to clarify, in Avastin we have not yet received any
`copy of the Pfizer bevacizumab agreement. It was -- I
`assume it falls under the same rubric. It's being produced
`on an outside counsel only basis only was our ability to
`seek relief.
`
`10/22/2019 11:55:11 AM
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MS. DURIE: On an outside counsel only basis.
`The request was to have Mr. Diamond as in-house counsel get
`access to that.
`We do have a problem --
`THE COURT: Is that in the material in front of
`
`

`

`
`THE COURT: I would think that the dates,THE COURT: I would think that the dates,
`
`acceleration clause could be relevant. It's going toacceleration clause could be relevant. It's going to
`
`outside counsel. You can redact the launch date only.outside counsel. You can redact the launch date only.
`MR. HIGGINS: Thank you, Your Honor.
`And we also in our application requested
`underlying negotiations that we can understand the interplay
`of --
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 479-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 33819
`(cid:21)(cid:28)(cid:27)
`(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:19)
`(cid:20)
`(cid:20)
`before, there's no value to that, there's no relevance to
`THE COURT: Well, wait. All right. We've only
`before, there's no value to that, there's no relevance to
`(cid:21)
`
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`dealt with one agreement right now in Pfizer, because Pfizer
`
`that to a damages or irreparable harm case in theirthat to a damages or irreparable harm case in their
`(cid:22)
`
`(cid:22)(cid:22)
`was present in the courtroom.
`
`litigation.litigation.
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)(cid:23)
`MR. HIGGINS: Right. Pfizer is involved in both
`(cid:24)
`
`(cid:24)(cid:24)
`issue 1 and 2, yes.
`(cid:25)
`
`(cid:25)(cid:25)
`THE COURT: Okay. Does Pfizer have anything
`(cid:26)
`(cid:26)
`else? I've read the letter response, 541.
`(cid:27)
`(cid:27)
`MR. JOHNSON: Yes.
`(cid:28)
`(cid:28)
`THE COURT: Do you want to say anything else?
`(cid:20)(cid:19)
`(cid:20)(cid:19)
`MR. JOHNSON: With regard to the bevacizumab
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
`agreement in particular, I just would like to reiterate that
`(cid:20)(cid:21)
`(cid:20)(cid:21)
`the only foreign terms that are in there are foreign launch
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`dates about foreign products dealing, resolving foreign
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`litigation, foreign patents.
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`THE COURT: Okay.
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`MR. JOHNSON: Even disclosure of outside counsel
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`is too much.
`
`(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:20)(cid:27)
`(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`THE COURT: I'm glad you brought that to myTHE COURT: I'm glad you brought that to my
`
`(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`attention. I apologize. I'm glad you brought that to myattention. I apologize. I'm glad you brought that to my
`
`(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:19)
`(cid:21)(cid:19)
`
`attention. Launch dates can be redacted. Okay?attention. Launch dates can be redacted. Okay?
`
`(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:20)
`(cid:21)(cid:20)
`
`MR. JOHNSON: Okay.MR. JOHNSON: Okay.
`
`(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:21)
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`
`THE COURT: Countries cannot.THE COURT: Countries cannot.
`
`(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:21)(cid:22)
`(cid:21)(cid:22)
`
`MR. JOHNSON: But if it says --MR. JOHNSON: But if it says --
`
`(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:23)
`(cid:21)(cid:23)
`
`THE COURT: If it says on blank date, we plan onTHE COURT: If it says on blank date, we plan on
`
`(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:21)(cid:24)
`(cid:21)(cid:24)
`
`launching, I'm glad you brought it back to my attention,launching, I'm glad you brought it back to my attention,
`
`THE COURT: I'm not going to give you -- we're
`not going to produce those.
`MR. HIGGINS: Okay. Understood. Thank you,
`Your Honor.
`THE COURT: All right.
`MR. JOHNSON: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Settlement
`negotiations are out?
`THE COURT: Correct. Yes. You can tell your
`client you won one.
`MS. DURIE: And on the understanding that also
`outside counsel only basis, I think that resolves the
`discovery issues, and the only issue that I'm aware of
`that's left on the table is the --
`MR. BELGAM: I'm sorry. I can't hear.
`MS. DURIE: I'm sorry. I said I believe the
`
`(cid:21)(cid:28)(cid:28)
`
`(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`only issue I believe is left on the table is the sanctions
`issue.
`
`that can be redacted.
`that can be redacted.
`
`MR. JOHNSON: Okay. If it says lice